verify_documentFetches a document (PDF, DOCX, or plain text) from a URL and runs the same 3-layer citation verification as verify_citation. Use this when you have a link to a brief rather than pasted text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL of the PDF, DOCX, or text document to fetch and verify |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the tool fetches a document and runs verification, but does not clarify side effects or why readOnlyHint is false. This creates ambiguity between the description's read-only implication and the annotation indicating potential writes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input format, and usage context. Lacks mention of return values or error handling, but these are partly covered by annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fetches' and 'runs verification' on a document URL, and differentiates from sibling tools like verify_citation by specifying input method (URL vs pasted text).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you have a link to a brief rather than pasted text.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: citation verification on pasted text, on document URLs, batch verification, retrieving past results, and searching sanctions. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., verify_citation, batch_verify_citations, search_sanctions), making the tool set predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for citation verification: single, document, batch, retrieval, and sanctions search. No redundant or excessive tools.
Core verification workflows (single, document, batch, retrieval) are covered. A listing endpoint for all verifications is missing but not critical for typical use.